idnabis tables feedback

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 11. februar 2008 19:07 -0800 Mark Davis <mark.davis at icu-project.org> 
wrote:

> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-04.txt
>
>    o  PROTOCOL VALID: Those that are allowed to be used in IDNs.
>       Codepoints with this property value are permitted for general use
>
> We were calling this just ALLOWED, which seems a better name -- and is
> what is actually used in the first line to define it: "Those that are
> allowed to be used in IDNs."

Per the discussion we had earlier about why the names should be changed, I 
think it is the explanation that needs fixing, not the name.

Section 5.1.1 of issues-07 says:


   Characters identified as "PROTOCOL-VALID" are, in general, permitted
   by IDNA for all uses in IDNs.  Their use may be restricted by rules
   about the context in which they appear or by other rules that apply
   to the entire label in which they are to be embedded.  For example,
   any label that contains a character in this group that has a "right
   to left" property must be used in context with the "Bidi" rules.

   The term "PROTOCOL-VALID", is used to stress the fact that the
   presence of a character in this category does not imply that a given
   registry need accept registrations containing any of the characters
   in the category.  Registries are still expected to apply judgment
   about labels they will accept and to maintain rules consistent with
   those judgments (see [IDNA200X-Protocol] and Section 5.3).

I believe that -tables should be as brief as possible, and refer to the 
right session in -issues for the detailed explanation - both to avoid 
inconsistencies and to avoid us going back and refighting old battles like 
this one.

(If you want to argue the names again, that should be in a thread on 
-issues, not -tables.)


                 Harald